Retraction 1 | Page 157
An insight into my work
It just ocurred to me, that I did a big woopsie on Page 157. It's one of those kinds of mistakes that happens to me frequently, and is part of what's on my mind when I mention personal mistakes. So in the Acknowledgment on History is to address a similar kind of mistake.
What I wrote is this:
I mean, so did David have the hots for this one woman; And he did a thing to get with her – which the Bible then gets to condemn. And that regards a morality that is kindof outside of the Law. On the other side, when some folks got to rape one of Jacob’s daughters … and her brothers do a bit of a bloodshed in response … the Bible’s stance is more like “cringe”.
So, we can see these positions change within the confines of the Bible.
Which is just SO wrong. It happens to me ever so often. So, I was writing this thing. And all of a sudden I had to think of this story of David. I thought of it for a second, and figured I could make something out of it - and so I wrote about it. The sentence "And that regards a morality that is kindof outside of the Law." originally was different. Somehow the whole thing however didn't register to me as related to the 10th commandment.
So my brain went elsewhere. Thereby I conceived of this idea, this impression, that between the rape incident and David's issue, the standards of the Bible had somehow improved. And that made a great segue to move on with the part on the New Testament.
Then, after reading through the whole thing again - which I had done a couple of times but this part was new - I recognized that my statement was wrong. So I meant to correct it. I was however ... in a "small edits" mode. So, I didn't want to totally reshape this part because it'd mess up the formatting. So my brain went back to the story I had conceived, which is that of "things changed, on with the new testament". My brain still didn't register the part on David as a matter of the 10th commandment, it even kinda totally blanked on the issue. So I changed the sentence, but perhaps replaced it with an even worse one.
So, it took some time then, for me to ask the question whether or not the Bible is really this inconsistent about itself. And not really having an answer - I ... started to panic and now am writing this retraction.
But now the problem is: How to fix it?
The thing for once is, that I do ever so often end up on wrong tracks like that. So, I have no trouble accepting that and so I'm thinking of what else could make the transition. And pondering upon the possibilities - from removing the whole part starting with the mention of David to perhaps seeing why I might have been led to take it there - I usually figure something out while thinking like: "phew, I'm glad nobody saw this!". It's ... embarassing!
I mean, I really don't get it. Unless I'm supposed to be really adamant there's something to it. Perhaps however it's a punishment for having erased the other actually good point. And going through this whole thing over and over again ... well, was certainly needed. I don't know. I don't think I did too badly but I suppose it kinda ended up on the more rambly side of things still.
Ideally now, I want the fix to be in about as long as the part I'm removing. Which is also a constant struggle sometimes. Initially so I for instance thought I could easily fit the whole thing into 144 pages. And so I was stingy to do changes that would add too much. By the time it was clear I couldn't fit it into the 144 - I was a bit more at ease about it. While over all however I think that this shouldn't be an issue for me.
Now, alternatively then, the part about David is a counter to the idea put forth, that "it's only adultery when people get to have issues with it". But that part I wouldn't change. It's obviously a bit in jest - although perhaps I'm humoring myself too much at that point for some people's tastes. The rape story then is in harsh contrast - as I recall. I didn't read through it however to be sure about what the Bible contains there - while what I recall is as much as that Jacob got upset and that the brothers were more like scolded for what they did. And yea - in that regard I see where my brain went, but ... how to so fix the segment concerning David? It would seem that once I juggle things around a little, I could make it fit. But I'm afraid that my concerns over the word-count won't really allow me to make that happen.
And this is so a moment where I find the text evolve. As - the content I have before me now is different to the one I had originally. So, yea - it's ease on the embarassment also.
So, rewriting the whole David part, I then also came around to read up on the rape story - and ... OK. I guess I fixed it. But the aspect of the Bible changing its position is now ... the silent part. As it now reads:
And there are issues, like, the story with David and Batseba. Although she then also gets to be the mother of Salomon, the Bible still condemns it. On the other side, when some folks got to rape one of Jacob’s daughters … and her brothers do a bit of a bloodshed in response … the Bible’s stance is more like “cringe”. Yes, eventually there’s more nuance to it; Which to the modern eye is however still … rape apology on one and based on the other side. And what’s right and wrong here? The New Testament on the other hand changes things up a bit. Even so concerning these tales.
I mean, so did
David have the hots for this one woman;
And he did a thing to get with her – which
the Bible then gets to condemn. And that
regards a morality that is kindof outside of
the Law. On the other side, when some
folks got to rape one of Jacob’s daughters
... and her brothers do a bit of a bloodshed
in response ... the Bible’s stance is more
So, we can see these positions change
within the confines of the Bible. And the New Testament then goes really hard on
talking of the ‘underlying issues’.
Which does however extend onto page 158 now.
I updated the corresponding files (7_nginx.pdf and nginx_full.pdf) - I hope I was fast enough here. Let's hope this was the last problem ...